A Superintendent Writes... Red Shirt Your Freshmen - Part 1

In response to the 4/29/16 post, “HS Accountability - Red Shirt Your Freshmen” a LYS Superintendent writes:

SC,

Something to consider and a possible warning. When restructuring the order of high school tested subjects, you must keep in mind that rearrangement will mean some tests will not be given for a year or two. 

That's fine, but you also have to keep in mind that district wide the hardest tests are in Grades 3, 4, 6, and 7.  STAAR is a reversal from the days of TAAS and TAKS where the hardest tests were at the high school level. 

The point is, your Grade 3-8 scores have to be strong enough to carry the district.  If you have weak Grade 3-8 performance you may need the relatively easy to pass high school tests to bring up your district average so the district meets state standards. 

I am not being theoretical.  I know of a district that did the high school rearrangement and the district went Improvement Required that year simply because Grade 3-8 scores were too weak to carry the district.  

SC Response

I don’t disagree with you. This can be an issue, but you are describing system failure(s). The question that you have to ask is, “Do you knowingly place High School students at greater risk to potentially protect adults and mask system failures?”

You know that I have and will do what is best for my students and deal with the adult repercussions.  As I have also seen you do, over and over again.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); PowerWalks CLC (Networked Formative Observation Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: Texas Association of Secondary School Principals Conference (Multiple Presentations); Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association Conference (Multiple Presentations); LYS / TASSP Advanced Leadership Academy (Keynote) 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

System Failure at the Macro Level

System failure is leadership failure. I hope that I have been clear on that concept. The effect of the mistakes I described in 3/30/2011 post, “Diagnosis of System Failure,” does not just apply in schools. It also applies in other settings, like running a state. I’ll just give you one big Texas example.

School finance is really a simple equation (no, I’m not naive). First, we decide the level of investment we want to make to adequately educate the populace. This is an infrastructure investment. As we invest more, we expect to realize a greater payoff. The payoff is the difference between a workforce made up primarily of laborers or a workforce made up primarily of knowledge users and knowledge builders. The decision on the level of investment is a leadership decision. If leadership determines that the needs of the state are best met by having lots of ditch diggers, stand up and say that. If leadership determines that the needs of the state are best met by having lots of knowledge workers, stand up and say that. But don’t remain mute on the topic and don’t tell us we can have knowledge workers at a ditch digger price. When leadership does either of these, they are either not leading, or lying.

The second part of the equation, after it has been determined at what level we will invest in infrastructure (that’s what schools and an educated populace represents), then we have to fund that investment with revenue streams (taxes). Nobody likes taxes. But the role of leadership is to advance responsible behavior and influence people to make personal commitments and/or sacrifices for long-term gain and the greater good. To continue to advocate for the reduction of revenue with the promise of increased infrastructure production is again either poor leadership or a lie.

As I stated at the beginning of this post, system failure is leadership failure. Though never healthy (or a good model), over the past six years the Texas (you can insert your state name here) school finance system has failed. Key leadership today, is the same that it was six years ago. That’s a clue.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Follow Sean Cain on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation

A Reader Asks... Poisonous Staff

A new LYS Principal asks:

SC,

I have a teacher who is average to maybe a bit below average. But she thinks she is above average. She is not doing the kids a lot of good, but nor is she particularly harmful to kids at this early stage in a new LYS district. However, she is absolute venom to the organization. When she doesn't agree she becomes vocally negative to kids, parents, and the community. At what point does being harmful to the organization become harmful to kids?

SC Response

Great question. The equation is based on communication, notice, opportunity, monitoring and feedback. Which means it really comes down to you, the leader. Let me explain why. First, I have no problem with cynical teachers. Remember the first LYS rule, system failure is leadership failure. But who is generally blamed for system failure? Teachers. So their cynicism is earned. Also, I initially have little problem with overinflated teacher egos. After all, teachers do the majority of the heavy lifting in education. And the weaker the system they work in, the more they are forced to be self-reliant.

So if I know that I am dealing with a cynical, egotistical, self-reliant mind set, I have to take deliberate actions to address this and quickly take a loose confederation of independent education contractors and mold them into a viable and functioning team.

Here is my basic action plan:

1. Meet with my all my staff, in small groups and individually, and communicate what my initial goals and expectations are and how progress will be measured. I make this list simple and concrete, and I repeat it like a broken record.

2. As I meet with teachers individually, those that are working with me, serving students and adding value to the organization; I reinforce them and encourage them. I also include them in more of the decision-making loops that are of interest to them. With those who are not working with me, serving students and adding value to the organization, I clearly state what I expect of them, clearly state how and when this will be measured and I start the clock.

3. The staff that are on the clock, I give some time and support to acquire new skills and improve attitudes.

4. I monitor all staff and campus operations and give all staff frequent and specific feedback. Staff that are moving forward with the organization are provided with increased opportunity. Those who are not, have their opportunities curtailed, up until they leave the organization, either on their own or by design.

If you do your job correctly and follow the above steps, in as quick as a semester you can have the majority of your staff moving forward and starting to feel good about themselves. The few that are either unable or unwilling to change will be gone by the end of the year. Just know that if you don’t do your part, the teachers aren’t the problem.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Asks... Curriculum

A reader asks,

I work in one of the many districts that works with LYS. I would like your opinion on a situation that we are dealing with. As a district, we have adopted a common scope and sequence. In the midst of this adoption, we have some campuses that are not performing at an acceptable level. Much of this can be attributed to poor instruction, but it is the scope and sequence that gets the blame. Even though it is questionable whether or not the scope and sequence is even being followed.

Now these campuses have received permission to dump what they were not using in the first place and adopt a new scope and sequence. Here are my concerns with this:

1. LYS talks about how the "great" districts have a common scope and sequence. This we now have, but now we have some campuses that have been given permission to not use it.

2. They have no data proving that the scope and sequence was not effective on their campuses, but that fact doesn’t seem to matter.

3. Finally, I am a proponent of education equity. By changing the curriculum at a few campuses, we are saying that we don't hold those students and teachers to the same expectations as we do for other students and teachers in the district.

Last note, we actually have proof points that we are on the right track. We have campuses that were on our watch list last year that implemented LYS training at full speed and followed the district mandated scope and sequence. Each of those campuses experienced significant increases in student performance.

As you say, your turn...

Think. Work. Achieve.

SC Response

No one can say that the LYS Nation is afraid to discuss any topic, no matter how raw. So everyone take a deep breath, because here we go.

1. In general, instruction is an issue at every campus. It’s just that most campuses don’t recognize this because their students bring enough prior knowledge and life experiences to the table to overcome marginal and/or inconsistent instruction. As such, I’m highly sensitive to teachers being unfairly blamed for system failures. All that to say, if you have marginal instruction at the poor campuses in your district, 7 times out of 10 you have marginal instruction at the rich campuses in your district.

2. On a struggling campus, it is typical for the staff to blame their failures on any and every thing other than themselves. This is not because they are bad people, it simply is human nature. In a system where leadership is in flux, you are forced to let the adults on campus work through their series of excuses until the only thing left to fix is their own individual practice. Unfortunately, this can be a painfully long process that creates a significant amount of collateral damage (marginalized students). With effective leadership, with either a clear mandate or significant credibility, you can short-circuit the dealing with the list of excuses process and get straight to work. An easy concept on paper, but the leaders who do this well, usually don’t stay in one place for very long.

3. If you don’t have short-term common assessments you don’t have a scope and sequence, you have a poorly implemented myth. The campuses that improve rapidly, monitor critical campus functions and make continuous adjustments and corrections. Short-term common assessments are the way to monitor scope and sequence implementation. Your successful campuses were doing this in an informal fashion. Your unsuccessful campuses avoided anything that resembled this practice.

4. I have no problem giving a campus permission to change. If a whole campus convinces itself that a particular “something” is a problem, “it” becomes the problem. Take this problem off the table. But to do so means that leadership and staff have to realize that they have willingly entered into a high stakes risk/reward proposition. First, they need to be clear on their implementation plan. Second, they need to be clear on the performance marks that they will meet or exceed. Third, they need to understand that if they are successful, they will get the credit and the district will look to copy their solution. Fourth, they need to understand that if they fail they will be gone. The high wire is an exciting place to work, but you don’t get a second chance.

5. Finally, when it comes to equity, fairness is not sameness. The answer that meets the needs of the many does not always address the needs of the few. Sometimes you have to do something different in a different setting. The question that has to be answered is if the “Different” is designed to benefit the student or the adult. The situation, as you describe it, leads me to believe that students were not the impetus for going off script. This is not the typical recipe for success.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Instructional Discussions - Part 4

The following is a continuation of yesterday’s post.

The writer of yesterday’s post had seven valid concerns relating to my campus improvement recipe. I will address each, in order.

1. Yes, the staffs at the absolute worst schools blame the kids and reject training. It’s an emotional defense mechanism. If it’s not the kids’ fault and there are things that I can do better, then that means I’m to blame. Try owning 40% to 80% failure rates. Makes it awful hard to get up in the morning to go to work. But as you well know when a whole school fails, that is not teacher failure. It is system failure. And system failure is leadership failure. The problem you have specifically faced as the internal “Fixer,” is that higher leadership hired you to fix their problem without accepting their responsibility for the problem. This has put you in a “you vs. the teacher” battle. You have to shift that to an “us vs. them” battle. And pick any convenient “them” that gets the staff moving. Once you start to build momentum, change the target. But remember this; it is still easier to move the staff that is doing nothing at a low SES school than it is to move a staff that is doing nothing at a high SES school.

2. Yes, the more conversations you have, the more you irritate people. But you of all people should know that one of the fundamental laws of physics is that movement requires friction. If you just have one conversation, you might as well have none. As leaders we have to articulate and repeat our expectations until they are met. Anything less is best described as management.

3. Short term objectives lead to directives and growth plans. Possibly, but not always. They should always lead to coaching and conversations. If the staff has been expected to do essentially nothing, then you have to lay out what you expect and help them get there. The more ingrained nothing is, the smaller the window for measurement and the more achievable the goal has to be. And as for directives and growth plans, I’m not a big fan. I believe in “notice and opportunity.” The concept is more in-depth than I have space in this post, but in short, growth plans take too long and camouflage the real issues of contention. Finally, if you are concerned about a staff reacting negatively to change, let me ease your concerns. 98% of staffs react negatively to change. The only staffs that do not react poorly have been trained to understand that the only constant is change. They still don’t like it, but they don’t gripe about it.

4. Your AP’s and central office will fold. That’s a given. You have to go in knowing that. Which means you have to manage up and manage down. You have to keep your AP’s close and your central office informed. In my first turn-around, I shared my office with the AP and police officer. We talked, and I coached constantly. They had no choice but to become conductors on the “Cain Train.” And make sure that you communicate with your central office uplinks on a regular basis. That means updates on initiatives and regular progress reports. But most importantly, you have to warn them of potential negatives. I always told my principals, “I can and will help you weather the storm if I’m not surprised. However, let me get caught unaware and you may be just as surprised by my solution to the problem that I now own.” Remember, the Principal has the luxury (responsibility) to be the pure advocate for students. Central Office has the responsibility to balance competing agendas in order to maintain viable district operations. Perhaps not as noble, but absolutely necessary.

5. Time is never on your side. Which is why framing the issue correctly is absolutely vital. It is not about adults. Everyday we wait to improve we sacrifice the opportunities of each and every one of our students. And until all of your struggling students graduate and all of your stronger students are accepted into the finest colleges in the country, you, your staff, your campus and your district are the primary limits to student success.

6. You create turmoil. Yes, when you shift the focus to student performance you change the rules of operations and employment. In the short run, this creates a lot of uncomfortable adults. Is that prudent? Define prudent. Brezina told me that it boils down to the following. As a Leader, it is up to you to make the tough decisions. Do that with morality and conviction and you can look yourself in the mirror every morning (and find the next job if necessary).

7. Moving is expensive. Yes, but what costs more, moving, or selling out your students?

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Interview Prep - Part 3)

In response to the posts on interview prep, a reader writes:

"I disagree with the last suggestion, (if the interview committee has 12 people just leave). Better advice for the LYS’er is to meet the committee face to face, be you, and engage them in the interview process. What you learn from their questions, opinions, the way they phrase things, how they respond and their subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) body language in response to your statements, etc., etc., etc., will give you invaluable insight into the mind-set of ‘weak-leadership-organization’.

Those organizations represent the overwhelming number of districts in education and therefore represent what you are almost guaranteed to face for the rest of your career. In order to survive, the more you understand about their flawed paradigm, the better prepared (and more successfully) you are able to play the role of change agent.

If it helps, think of ‘THEM’ as the enemy, you have a golden opportunity to get to know how ‘THEY’ operate. Do not squander it.

“Know the enemy and know yourself, and in a hundred battles you will never be in peril…”Sun Tzu, 400-320 B.C."

SC Response
And people think that I won’t print a contrary opinion. I like your take on this. Observe the weak and flawed organization up close, in order to better understand it. I have to admit, my impatience with blatantly ineffective practices blinded me to pure academic novelty of the exercise. Now, I honestly want to find a huge interview committee to engage with.

I tell principal all the time that there is value in visiting schools; any school, bad to great. And that often times it is easier to find things that can immediately improve your craft at the bad school. The “broke” practice usually is very obvious. I can see the correlation with the bad interview process.

For me the enemy is the inefficient use of effort. Thanks for the reminder to continuously study that and its causes.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Interview Prep - Part 1)

In response to the posts on interview prep, a reader writes:

“As a twist to Cain's excellent advice, there is yet another scenario. You interview and the school thinks it needs a Brown / Brezina / Cain type leader because it is in deep trouble. The school may have earned an unacceptable state rating, missed AYP, or most likely both. As Cain often reminds us, this type of school trouble is the final sign of total system failure.

The school hires you and district leadership and campus staff tell you they will do anything to get out of trouble. So you fix their school for them. But once the school “leaders” who hired you can breathe a sigh of relief, very likely they will allow the district to creep back to its old, total system failure way of doing business. In this scenario, you are the cancer and they will do everything possible to hasten your exit.

SC Response:
Spoken like someone who has been there, more than once. I wish I could tell the LYS Nation that this is never the case, but often it is. Many in our profession honestly believe that it is possible to “arrive,” and in the short-run they are willing to do the things necessary to facilitate that forthcoming “arrival.”

The most difficult part of what I do is when I break the hearts of hard working educators in struggling schools. These are the staff that have been there for a long time. They are vested in the students, the school, and the community. They know that they are in trouble. They will look at me and say, “We will do whatever it takes. We will work after school and on weekends. Just tell us when we will be done.”

And I have to answer, “You won’t be. There will be some of you who will be motivated be the constant change and will embrace the journey into the uncharted territories of teaching and learning. And some of you will quit. Our profession has changed, somewhat for the worse, but mostly for the better.”

If you find yourself as the initial change leader in a turnaround situation, here is your survival checklist:

1. Go in with your eyes wide open.

2. Remember Brown's law - The only pure advocate for all students is the principal. You volunteered for the role, so you have to step up – no one else will.

3. Know that the more imminent the crisis, the more likely that the required leadership skills required to save the organization will not translate through the transition to sustainable operations (See: Churchill).

4. Know that part of your job is to make sure that the next principal is set up to take the campus to even higher levels of performance.

There are “Bad to Good” principals, sustaining principals, and “Good to Great” principals. Their skill sets are dramatically different. Know who you are and embrace it.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn…

A Reader Submits... More Jeopardy

Once again in is time for world’s toughest game… LYS Jeopardy!

Alex, I'll take ‘Incompetent Executive Leadership’ for $2,000.

What is, "I say I want my schools to change, but instead of addressing the obvious weaknesses of upper management, I hold middle and lower management accountable for system issues for which they are not responsible. Thus, shifting everyone’s attention away from my incompetence.”

SC Response
Schools fail because systems fail. Systems are the responsibility of leadership. The more catastrophic the system failure, the further up the leadership chain the responsibility lies. It is this simple fact that school boards, assistant superintendents and directors do their best to ignore. Average to great Superintendents understand this, but they like Head Coaches, expect to be fired at some time.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Gant Wisdon 1 - Part 3)

In response to the posts relating to “Gant Wisdom 1,” a reader writes:

"SC, we will have to disagree on this one. Once a faculty gets a strong sense of family, the principal may be in trouble. The "family" in dysfunctional schools typically does not include students. Take two districts of which we are both intimately familiar. Both districts have expended tremendous energy and policy decisions making the schools great places for employees to work. There is a true sense of family. Yet the schools are horrible for kids. In previous schools I have worked in there was a tremendous sense of family, not including kids of course. Collegiality is what we need, not congeniality.

We must come together and work together for a common purpose. That purpose must be to improve our schools for kids. Congenial schools that I have seen ALWAYS have focused on making the school better for adults. Example: we get together, talk all day about how to make things better for kids, and then go to happy hour and enjoy each other's company. That is collegiality.

Or, we get together, spend all day “bonding,” focusing on each other. That is congeniality. The only difference is the purpose of the day. Having served in the military and in law enforcement, I can tell you we were truly colleagues. We trained together, did our duty together, and often bled together. We loved each other like brothers, but we always had a common purpose.

In congenial relationships the purpose is what is often missing. The difference is subtle, but significant. As you say, SC, the difference is in the nuance. Having experienced both, I fully understand the nuance."

SC Response
The source of our disagreement is the eternal question of whether or not the glass is half full or half empty and the context of position. Where you are, the glass is half empty (and held together by duct tape). Where I am, the glass is half full (and held together by duct tape).

We are in total agreement that where you are now is in the final death throws of total system failure brought on by leadership incompetence that best resembles Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Get out and let it burn.

But from my position, the failure of that same system has the potential to save 100’s of other districts. I am more that willing to let the aggressively incompetent serve as the “what not to do” example for those who are willing to push themselves and their organizations to maximize student potential.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Shares... Accountability Crisis of Conscious

One of the original LYS readers submits the following:

"Well, I have heard of situations like this, but until now had never been introduced to one (even in a dysfunctional system and I have seen a couple of those). I am really torn.

What is the situation? I sat in a meeting today where the discussion was on how best to address our accountability situation (AU) with our TAKS-M students in mind. I understand the pressure to do what is needed to make sure we get as many students as possible on the pass list (AA was just a few students away.) But, how do you resolve an accountability crisis of conscience when the PBMAS shows that in the area of SPED you are stage 2 and have a 3 in several areas, including too many TAKS-M students and too few TAKS/TAKS-Acc students?

With the change in the law as to who is qualified to take TAKS-M to include both modifications and accommodations and TAKS-M is an indicator of a student who is more than one year from grade level mastery, should TAKS-M students remain in that category even if they have a greater than needed mastery level?

Should a student who has the credits and ability to take TAKS-Acc (and earn a recommended diploma) be relegated to TAKS-M and the minimal plan? What does it really mean to see the "big" picture in this case? Where is the defining line?"

SC Response:
CL, call me if this doesn’t help. There are two dimensions to your dilemma, the macro-answer and the micro-answer. I’m going to respond to both. But I defer to the LYS Nation on the specifics, regarding coding requirements. First, the micro-response

There are two major considerations to your dilemma at the micro level. The first is student centered. The primary goal at the High School level must be graduation, especially for schools that are in crisis. Course work and testing decisions must be made to put the student in the best possible position to earn the most rigorous diploma that is realistically feasible. If I’m going to gamble with a student’s future, I’m looking for the low risk, high reward option. But I’m not going to sell a student short just to hedge my personal bet.

The second micro consideration is accountability related. In the short run, you have to play the game in order to stay in the game long enough to fix the system. That means that if you have to choose between fixing state accountability or federal accountability, fix the one that is most critical (i.e. the one that will shut you down the quickest). Buy some time and live to fight tomorrow.

At the macro-level, fix the system at full speed. When a campus goes AU (or has a significant ratings drop), that is the final symptom of system failure. Everything is on the table at this point. The key is to quit focusing on the symptom (student performance) and attack the problem (the instructional delivery machine). And fixing the machine is a leadership responsibility.

That is my quick take on an all too common problem. However, you and I need to hear more from the LYS Nation. Specifically, E. Don, John, Mike, Lynn and Pam, what would you add?

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... The Problem with Programs - Part 3)

In response to the discussion on “Programs,” a reader writes:

“The biggest problem with programs is that we are talking about them! The point is we give too much credence to programs hence, this endless string of posts to this devastatingly boring and useless topic. LYS philosophy is about building strong teachers, supporting them, and leading them to victory - period. We get off task when we even entertain the world of programs. Shut up and start leading! Said with 'fidelity.' Respond if you dare.”

SC Response
I understand this reader’s frustration. I sit in on too many meetings where the discussion is how to succeed in spite of teachers (the selling point of many programs). The key is front line teaching.

Leadership must provide both induction and on-going advanced training for teachers. Leadership must provide necessary tools and resources to teachers. Leadership must ensure that teachers implement the training and use the tools and resources. And, leadership must remediate or remove consistently ineffective teachers. This can only be done if leadership is engaged with teachers and instruction on a daily basis.

When you find yourself trying to figure out how to overcome teachers, as opposed to how to improve the effectiveness of teachers, the issue is the system. System failure is leadership failure. Or as the reader so delicately wrote, “Quit entertaining programs and start leading.”

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...